It is currently Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:57 pm

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: D-Day 75th Anniversary
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:46 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
This guy is pretty bad-ass. I hope to be in half as good as shape as he is if I make it to my 90's.

phpBB [video]



And Russia is as lame as ever. They are rightfully getting beat up in the comments.

Quote:
The Normandy landings were not a game-changer for the outcome of WWII and the Great Patriotic War. The outcome was determined by the Red Army’s victories – mainly, in Stalingrad and Kursk. For three years, the UK and then the US dragged out opening the second front.

https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/1 ... ng-wwii%2F


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:39 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 20119
To be fair, the outcome would've been a lot worse had we NOT had the Russians on our side. The Eastern Front diverted millions of bodies, millions of tons of supplies and munitions, tens of thousands of tanks and planes that we otherwise didn't have to fight ourselves. If the Eastern Front had failed in 1942 or didn't exist to begin with, any subsequent operations attempting to do landings in France or a push through Italy up into southern Germany would have been at best arduous affairs if we weren't actually kicked back into the sea once or twice.

It's also worth noting the outcome would've been far worse for us had the Eighth Air Force of the United States Army Air Forces not blasted the absolute fuck out of German industry, especially when the Eighth moved on to attacking stuff producing raw materials instead of finished products. Tank production in Germany took a nosedive when the B-17's starting bombing ball bearings factories instead of tankworks. Same happened with a lot of things they were doing, they caused critical and constant shortages of munitions, parts and eventually complete models of tanks, planes, ships and more.

Likewise our help both via the USAAF and the Normandy invasions diverted fucktons of men, materiel, munitions and more away from the Eastern Front to defend German industry and to try and hold France against us. That broke up the slow operations of late 1943/early 1944 prior to Operation Bagration and other Soviet operations that ultimately ended in the final Battle of Berlin in April 1945.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:48 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
SomeGuy wrote:
To be fair, the outcome would've been a lot worse had we NOT had the Russians on our side.


Don't think anyone is arguing against that.

People are rightfully pointing out the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are petty and historically illiterate to put out a tweet like that on the 75th anniversary of D-Day.

Maybe if Russia didn't ally themselves with Hitler to carve up Poland (killing 30,000 Polish officers/intellectuals) - Russia wouldn't have had such a hard time in their great "Patriotic War" trying to save their skin from their former ally?


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:55 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 20119
Foota wrote:

People are rightfully pointing out the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are petty and historically illiterate to put out a tweet like that on the 75th anniversary of D-Day.


Petty perhaps, but not as historically illiterate as some would believe.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:13 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
SomeGuy wrote:
Foota wrote:

People are rightfully pointing out the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are petty and historically illiterate to put out a tweet like that on the 75th anniversary of D-Day.


Petty perhaps, but not as historically illiterate as some would believe.


It is historically illiterate. Doubtful the USSR would have prevailed if Nazi Germany could have put all of their resources on the Eastern Front.

It is also lame considering the USSR was not fighting the Nazis in Africa and Italy let alone doing jack shit about Japan.

All the USSR was doing was defending their own homeland after being double-crossed by their former ally. While Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis were sacrificing their soldiers to liberate other countries thousands of miles from home.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:00 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant-Colonel
Lieutenant-Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2003 12:00 pm
Posts: 19213
Location: teh internet
Foota wrote:
All the USSR was doing was defending their own homeland after being double-crossed by their former ally. While Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis were sacrificing their soldiers to liberate other countries thousands of miles from home.


Bleh. Without Pearl Harbour and Hitler's Declaration of War, Murrica would have continued to turn a blind eye to the whole thing, aside from exporting weapons of course.

But you're right about the British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis...


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:14 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 33178
PBFMullethunter wrote:
Foota wrote:
All the USSR was doing was defending their own homeland after being double-crossed by their former ally. While Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis were sacrificing their soldiers to liberate other countries thousands of miles from home.


Bleh. Without Pearl Harbour and Hitler's Declaration of War, Murrica would have continued to turn a blind eye to the whole thing, aside from exporting weapons of course.


Quite. Germany and Japan literally declared war against the US. Had they not I'm not convinced there was sufficient appetite in the USA to get involved.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:15 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 25443
I forgot that Murricu won ww2 singlehanded

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:18 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
PBFMullethunter wrote:
Foota wrote:
All the USSR was doing was defending their own homeland after being double-crossed by their former ally. While Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis were sacrificing their soldiers to liberate other countries thousands of miles from home.


Bleh. Without Pearl Harbour and Hitler's Declaration of War, Murrica would have continued to turn a blind eye to the whole thing, aside from exporting weapons of course.


And Stalin and the Communists would have been content in carving up Europe with the Nazis, had the Nazis not double-crossed them.

And we exported a shit ton of war material to help the Soviets fight against their former Nazis allies - second behind only Great Britain in total aide.

Here is Khrushchev admitting the obvious:

Quote:
"I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so".[41]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:20 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
barcelona wrote:
I forgot that Murricu won ww2 singlehanded


We didn't, but the tweet from Russian foreign ministry today seems to suggest the USSR won the "Great Patriotic War" single handedly.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:34 pm 
Offline
Colonel
Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:00 pm
Posts: 20119
Foota wrote:
It is historically illiterate. Doubtful the USSR would have prevailed if Nazi Germany could have put all of their resources on the Eastern Front.


That depends on a number of factors and even that would likely be an oversimplification.

1) What are the Western Allies (particularly the US) doing? Are we still providing Lend-Lease? It's actually pretty well-documented that the backbone of Soviet logistics was built on American (particularly Studebaker) trucks and vehicles. A significant portion of the VVS (Soviet Air Force) was using American built planes (particularly the P-39 Airacobra). There were even Soviet tank divisions equipped entirely with Shermans.

If the Western Allies aren't in this particular area, the Eastern Front becomes bloodier and potentially Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad might have a different outcome initially but if the other options stay the same, the ultimate outcome remains the same.

2) Is Barbarossa launched on time or is delayed like it was in reality? Had Barbarossa been launched one month earlier it would've caught the Soviet Red Army in the midst of Stalinist purges and major reorganizations instead of the aftermath which left a lot of more competent commanders such as Chuikov. This chaos would likely have led to faster and further advances before the winter of 1941 set in.

If the advances are fast enough to prevent Soviet industry from relocating core and essential industries (firearms, munitions, tanks, etc.) to the Ural Mountains maybe a different outcome could be achieved in theory.

3) Are the Germans continuing to run their existent command and control structures and doctrines? The Germans were very inflexible and often suffered infighting at the operational level. While individual squads and platoons may have demonstrated significant cohesion and organization to accomplish their objectives, the higher up in scale you go the less organized and built for purpose the Wehrmacht becomes. Operational maneuvers above that of a single Corps were more or less tied to Der Fuhrer's approval which made Wehrmacht advances or retreats very haphazard and contradictory. This is especially demonstrated at Stalingrad and later Kursk because the Germans basically had no clue what their objective was, their goal, their purpose beyond "killing Soviets". Operational indecision and the slow approval process for major movements from Der Fuhrer meant the Germans could never adapt or react to the Soviets in any meaningful way long term. Entire offensives German and Soviet were decided early on precisely because of these problems.

Contrast that to the Soviets. At the squad/platoon level, the average Soviet conscript unit looked by appearances little different than a charging rabble. But the higher up the command and control scheme you went the more organized and more chillingly clearer in purpose they became. At the operational level, entire army groups knew exactly when and where they were supposed to be and what they were intended to do. This then filtered down the chain of command to individual units who were given all the information they needed to achieve their specific objectives. Everything moved and placed to support each other part of the grand operation as a whole. An infantry company moves to take a village which ends up supporting the flank of a tank battalion which breaks the main line allowing artillery to move their fire onto new targets.

One time of this was best demonstrated at the Vistula-Oder Offensive in what would become later known as Soviet "deep battle" doctrine. Swift advances, simple orders, known but flexible timetables deciding various outcomes. On the ground it might've looked little different than a horde of men and tanks coming at you, but step back and look at the entire theater of operations and it's terrifying how clear and precise their aims and purpose is. And it worked, Vistula-Oder was a horrifically damaging blow to the Germans that more or less broke the back of the Eastern Front once and for all and led to the rapid advances into the remander of Poland and eastern Germany that ended the war.

4) What's the political situation in an isolated Eastern Front? Are the Western Allies supporting Stalin and the Soviets politically? Is Stalin (or Hitler) allowed to remain in power or will there be assassination/decapitation strikes to try and change that? Are the Wehrmacht behaving in such a way they continue to be seen as liberators instead of becoming subjugators?

If the Allies withdraw political (and presumably equipment) support a different outcome is possible, especially if Barbarossa is launched on time. If Hitler is removed from the equation, does Germany get somebody much better in terms of military competence? Similar for Stalin, if he gets removed does the Soviet Union get a weaker or stronger leader that follows? If the Wehrmacht had behaved differently occupying former Soviet territories they may have drawn on a wide pool of manpower and support against the Soviets as indeed initially in places like Ukraine where they had had quite a bit of famine and other problems in the 1930s under Soviet rule they were seen as liberators against the Communists. (Remember the Russian Civil War hadn't even been over for 20 years at that point.) But instead they behaved as subjugators, practicing genocide or at least indifference to the civilian populace which turned the opinions of folks inside occupied territories from liberators to enemies that must be driven out. As much as Ukrainians hated the Russians, by 1943 they hated the Germans worse such that it was a better proposition to go back to being Red than becoming Dead with the Nazis.

So many factors that could've led to mildly or even completely different outcomes, all in the absence of us doing a lot of things.

Foota wrote:
It is also lame considering the USSR was not fighting the Nazis in Africa and Italy let alone doing jack shit about Japan.


There's a reason why you know. The last thing the Western Allies wanted to do was spread the Soviets too thin by trying to go against Japan in Manchuria and they were surrounded by neutral states in the Middle East (particularly Turkey) that wouldn't let them march troops to British bases and thus sent to North Africa. They needed every last Soviet conscript in Soviet territory tying up as much men, materiel and otherwise from the Germans so that the Western Allies could counter the machinations of Germany and Italy in North Africa, the Mediterranean and elsewhere.

Remember in 1941 the British Empire was effectively beat to shit militarily and the US wasn't yet in the war. In 1942, the US had the bulk of the US Navy off in the Pacific fighting Japan as well as the Marine Corps. We were too depleted or extended to risk operations to bring Soviet troops to North Africa and elsewhere. We needed them right where they were.

Foota wrote:
All the USSR was doing was defending their own homeland after being double-crossed by their former ally. While Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis were sacrificing their soldiers to liberate other countries thousands of miles from home.


We had territories (particularly the Philippines and other Pacific islands) under attack too by the Japanese. We even had a significant battle on US soil in Alaska at Attu Island. The British Empire was under attack worldwide and the French possessions were being taken to task to break away from the Vichy and fold into the Free French Forces.

Likewise a number of the possessions under attack were either US, Dutch, British or Commonwealth (Australia, India, etc.). We had to defend and liberate them for better positioning to further attack the Axis worldwide. At our best in the 1940s we could not possibly simply sail a fleet into Japan and march troops on Tokyo. We needed bases to move support from bombers to naval bases to barracks and hospitals, Hawaii was too far away and the Philippines were held by the Japanese. Likewise we could not possibly have attempted a landing in Germany. We needed bases in Britain and we needed our flanks secure from reinforcements out of Italy or North Africa. North Africa was used as a base and springboard for our moves into Italy, we could not have sailed from Chesapeake Bay to Sicily. We needed air support based in North Africa, we needed secure bases to move ships and supplies to Gibraltar, Malta and more.

In shortest terms, we liberated those territories because they helped our overall mission against Germany, Italy and Japan. We didn't do it out of the kindness of our hearts or some kind of obligation to the European Allies. Similarly we needed the Soviets to throw every last effort they had on the Eastern Front to help the overall mission.

_________________
Ill sell ya the rope with which you shall hang yourself.
Capitalism for the Win.

PCNC and PBF live in death!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:42 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 33178
Foota wrote:
barcelona wrote:
I forgot that Murricu won ww2 singlehanded


We didn't, but the tweet from Russian foreign ministry today seems to suggest the USSR won the "Great Patriotic War" single handedly.


In fairness Western history (as taught) tends to downplay the Russian impact on the war.

(That's not to say the tweet was accurate or in good taste)

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:57 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:
barcelona wrote:
I forgot that Murricu won ww2 singlehanded


We didn't, but the tweet from Russian foreign ministry today seems to suggest the USSR won the "Great Patriotic War" single handedly.


In fairness Western history (as taught) tends to downplay the Russian impact on the war.

(That's not to say the tweet was accurate or in good taste)


History also downplays the USSR's alliance with Nazi Germany with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

The USSR was just trying to save it's own skin. They were not sacrificing their blood and treasure to help other nations that were invaded by the Nazis or Imperial Japan.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:12 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 25443
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:

We didn't, but the tweet from Russian foreign ministry today seems to suggest the USSR won the "Great Patriotic War" single handedly.


In fairness Western history (as taught) tends to downplay the Russian impact on the war.

(That's not to say the tweet was accurate or in good taste)


History also downplays the USSR's alliance with Nazi Germany with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

The USSR was just trying to save it's own skin. They were not sacrificing their blood and treasure to help other nations that were invaded by the Nazis or Imperial Japan.



Don't forget the USSR also invaded Poland....

Ask any Pole who they detest more the Russians or the Germans........

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:26 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
barcelona wrote:


Don't forget the USSR also invaded Poland....

Ask any Pole who they detest more the Russians or the Germans........


Yep.

And the USSR basically occupied and controlled Poland for another 40+ years after WWII continuing to fuck up that country with Communism.

HM sometimes seems unhappy that NATO pushed East freeing countries like Poland from the clutches of the USSR.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:55 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 25443
Foota wrote:
barcelona wrote:


Don't forget the USSR also invaded Poland....

Ask any Pole who they detest more the Russians or the Germans........


Yep.

And the USSR basically occupied and controlled Poland for another 40+ years after WWII continuing to fuck up that country with Communism.

HM sometimes seems unhappy that NATO pushed East freeing countries like Poland from the clutches of the USSR.



I'm talking about the 1939 invasion, not the one after ww2. Roosevelt and Churchill sold Poland to the Russians.

_________________
Empir immoto


Last edited by barcelona on Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:56 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 33178
All sides were pretty cuntish in WWII. Some just much less so than others.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:30 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
Slacks wrote:
All sides were pretty cuntish in WWII. Some just much less so than others.



So very lame.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:54 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 25443
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:
All sides were pretty cuntish in WWII. Some just much less so than others.



So very lame.



But true. Barbarity was practicing on both sides.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:07 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 33178
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:
All sides were pretty cuntish in WWII. Some just much less so than others.


So very lame.


True though

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:27 pm 
Offline
Major
Major
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:40 pm
Posts: 17088
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:
All sides were pretty cuntish in WWII. Some just much less so than others.


So very lame.


True though


That bitch was cuntish for shooting and killing her rapist!


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:31 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 25443
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:

So very lame.


True though


That bitch was cuntish for shooting and killing her rapist!



Are you quite mad? Your comparison bares no resemblance.

You think the allies were squeaky clean?

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:47 pm 
Offline
Major General
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 33178
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:

So very lame.


True though


That bitch was cuntish for shooting and killing her rapist!


That's a rubbish analogy. There are numerous examples of allies deliberately targeting civilian areas with limited to no strategic value.

_________________
barcelona wrote:
Pics of Someguy naked wrapped in bacon........


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:53 pm 
Offline
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:42 am
Posts: 25443
Slacks wrote:
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:

True though


That bitch was cuntish for shooting and killing her rapist!


That's a rubbish analogy. There are numerous examples of allies deliberately targeting civilian areas with limited to no strategic value.



He'll never understand. He blindly worships his country. They can do no bad... He cannot see things from the other side..It's a shame really. As he's a pretty intelligent bloke.

_________________
Empir immoto


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:18 am 
Offline
Captain
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 13886
Location: The OC
barcelona wrote:
Foota wrote:
Slacks wrote:

In fairness Western history (as taught) tends to downplay the Russian impact on the war.

(That's not to say the tweet was accurate or in good taste)


History also downplays the USSR's alliance with Nazi Germany with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

The USSR was just trying to save it's own skin. They were not sacrificing their blood and treasure to help other nations that were invaded by the Nazis or Imperial Japan.



Don't forget the USSR also invaded Poland....

Ask any Pole who they detest more the Russians or the Germans........


Poland’s is a totally fake country created in 1918, just to fuck Germany. The Russians and the Germans (& Austria through Germany :>_ ) just wanted their former territory back, and rightfully so.

You support the right of Poland to exist as an independent country based on some ancient history???? :-? .........why by that logic Israel has every right to exist as an independent country also.

:D

_________________
Radio Free Midnight http://www.twitch.tv/midnight562



Image

[**==] [**==] SomeGuy 2020 [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] It's going to be a [**==] [**==]
[**==] [**==] Brave New World [**==] [**==]


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: francois-xavier c. and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited